Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2261 (RAJ)

Harisingh v. Vishnu Narayan Sharma

2017-10-27

ALOK SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the Executing Court whereby the application filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor (hereinafter 'judgment debtor') against the execution of the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Alwar as affirmed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No.100/2006 decided on 03.10.2007 has been rejected. 2. The contention of the counsel for the judgment debtor is that as the judgment debtor under the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30.01.2006 passed by the Civil Court is belongs to the Scheduled Castes, execution of the decree as per Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1957') can only be under Section 8 of the Act of 1957 and not by resort to Order 21 CPC before the Executing Court. Reference has also made to Section 21 of the Act of 1957 in support of the contention. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. The factum of the petitioner being the judgment debtor under judgment and decree dated 30.01.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Alwar as affirmed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No.100/2006 decided on 03.10.2007, is not in dispute. It is also on record that in the course of the execution proceedings in respect of the final judgment and decree referred to above, objections were filed before the Executing Court in Execution Application No.41/04/2006 and it vide order dated 12.02.2008. It was directed that the execution of the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Alwar as affirmed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No.100/2006 decided on 03.10.2007 remain stayed for a period of two months to facilitate the judgment debtor in the aforesaid decree to take proceedings under the Act of 1957. Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Executing Court under order dated 12.02.2008 the judgment debtor-Hari Singh the petitioner herein took proceedings before the Agriculture Debt Relief Court (Senior Civil Judge), Alwar by resort to Section 6 of the Act of 1957. Vide order dated 03.05.2016 his application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 has however been dismissed. No further proceedings there against having been taken the said determination has attained finality. 5. Vide order dated 03.05.2016 his application under Section 6 of the Act of 1957 has however been dismissed. No further proceedings there against having been taken the said determination has attained finality. 5. The Executing Court in the circumstances under its impugned order dated 06.07.2017 has held that the matter with regard to the purported right of the judgment debtor for protection under the Act of 1957 thus stands concluded against him in terms of the judgment dated 03.05.2016 passed in case no.03/2008 and no protection obtained for him against the execution of the final judgment and decree dated 30.01.2006 as affirmed in appeal. 6. I am not impressed with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that a judgment and decree passed by a Civil Court against the Scheduled Caste persons can only be executed by resort to the Act of 1957. Except for the bald assertion made by counsel no statutory provision has been pointing out in support nor a ratio decidendi of any decided case in this regard referred to a pre-emptive view of the Court with formulation of the question agitated and reasons for determination thereof set out. The Act of 1957 provides relief to Scheduled Caste persons and sets out the law for relief against debt as defined under Section 2 (c) to targeted persons in the manner detailed in Section 6 of the Act of 1957 where such relief is sought and denied. There can be no protection against the debt determined by a civil court by way of execution by the Executing Court obstructed. 7. In the facts of the case with resort to Section 6 of the Act of 1957 proceedings taken filed by the judgment debtor having been found without force and the application dismissed in terms of the judgment passed by the Agriculture Debt Relief Court (Senior Civil Judge), Alwar vide order dated 03.05.2016. I cannot find any legal bar to the execution of the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2006 affirmed in appeal on 03.10.2007. The petition stands accordingly dismissed.